MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2432245838 · doi:10.1123/mcj.4.1.68

Coordination of One- and Two-Joint Muscles during Voluntary Movement: Theoretical and Experimental Considerations

2000· letter· en· W2432245838 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMotor Control · 2000
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMuscle activation and electromyography studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematical proofsortMovement (music)Function (biology)Computer scienceJoint (building)Mathematical economicsBasis (linear algebra)Space (punctuation)EpistemologyMathematicsPhilosophyInformation retrievalGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The target article by Dr. Prilutsky is based on three incorrectly derived mathematical rules concerning force-sharing among synergistic muscles associated with a cost function that minimizes the sum of the cubed muscle stresses. Since these derived rules govern all aspects of Dr. Prilutsky's discussion and conclusion and form the basis for his proposed theory of coordination between one-and two-joint muscles, most of what is said in the target article is confusing or misleading at best or factually wrong at worst. The aim of our commentary is to sort right from wrong in Dr. Prilutsky's article within space limitations that do not allow for detailed descriptions of mathematical proofs and explicit discussions of the relevant experimental literature.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.464
Threshold uncertainty score0.925

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.186 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it